Friday, 17, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Ashokan vs State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 943 Ker

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 943 Ker
Judgement Date : 14 July, 2025

Kerala High Court

Ashokan vs State Of Kerala on 14 July, 2025

Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
CRL.MC NO. 4781 OF 2020


                               1
                                                 2025:KER:51757




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

        THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

   MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1947

                   CRL.MC NO. 4781 OF 2020

  CRIME NO.1190/2016 OF VADAKARA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE

         CC NO.602 OF 2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

                       CLASS, VADAKARA

PETITIONERS/1ST AND 2ND ACCUSED:

    1     ASHOKAN
          AGED 58 YEARS
          S/O.KUMARAN, MEDAPPALLY HOUSE,
          VILLYAPILLY AMSOM, VILLYAPILLY P.O.,
          VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT
          PIN-673 542

    2     MAPALLI CHANDRI
          AGED 64 YEARS
          D/O.KUMARAN,
          PURANTHAZHATHU THAZHAKUNI HOUSE,
          MAKKUL PEEDIKA P.O., PIN-673 104


          BY ADVS.
          SRI.C.BHASKARAN
          SHRI.NIKHIL K GOPINATH
 CRL.MC NO. 4781 OF 2020


                             2
                                              2025:KER:51757


RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

    1    STATE OF KERALA
         REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
         HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
         ERNAKULAM PIN-682 031

    2    PREMI @ PRAMILA
         W/O.BHALACHANDRAN, AGED 50 YEARS,
         SHIVADA HOUSE, VALLIYUR,
         NOCHAD P.O., KOYLANDI-673 614


         BY ADVS.
         SRI.MANUEL KACHIRAMATTAM
         SMT.MERRY GEORGE



OTHER PRESENT:

         SRI.SANGEETHA RAJ.N.R-PP


     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
14.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRL.MC NO. 4781 OF 2020


                                  3
                                                     2025:KER:51757




                             ORDER

This Crl.M.C. has been filed to quash Annexure A2 final

report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.602 of 2017 on the

files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vatakara,

Kozhikode District (for short, 'the trial court') against the

petitioners.

2. The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the

respondent No.2 is the defacto complainant in C.C.No.602 of

2017 on the files of the trial court. The case arose out of a private

complaint filed by the respondent No.2 against the petitioners.

Annexure A1(6) is the private complaint. Annexure A1(6) private

complaint was forwarded by the Magistrate to the police for

investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The police

registered Annexure A1 FIR and after investigation, filed

Annexure A2 final report against the petitioners alleging offences

punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 r/w Section 34 of

the IPC.

CRL.MC NO. 4781 OF 2020

2025:KER:51757

3. The petitioners and the respondent No.2 are siblings.

The prosecution allegation in Annexure A2 final report is that the

grandmother of the petitioners and the respondent No.2 namely

Matha gifted 5.6 Ares of land that belonged to her in favour of

the petitioner No.1 as per registered gift deed No.999/1972 of

SRO, Villiappally. Thereafter, the petitioner No.1 assigned the

property covered by the said document in favour of the petitioner

No.2 as per registered document No.1473/2005. The case of the

prosecution is that while assigning so, the petitioner No.1, in

collusion with the petitioner No.2, had shown the extent of the

land as 7.82 Ares instead of the correct extent of 5.6 Ares. It is

alleged that the said act on the part of the petitioners amounts to

forgery and it was done with the intention to cheat the

respondent No.2.

4. I have heard Sri.C.Bhaskaran, the learned counsel for

the petitioners, Sri.Manuel Kachiramattam, the learned counsel

for the respondent No.2 and Sri.Sangeetha Raj.N.R., the learned

Public Prosecutor.

CRL.MC NO. 4781 OF 2020

2025:KER:51757

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

the allegations in the private complaint and the final report, even

if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety,

do not prima facie constitute an offence or make out any case

against the petitioners. Per contra, the learned counsel for the

respondent No.2 and the learned Public Prosecutor submitted

that there are materials on record to connect the petitioners with

the crime, and when a prima facie case is made out, the

jurisdiction vested with this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

cannot be invoked.

6. As stated already, the parties are closely related. The

petitioners and the the respondent No.2 are siblings. The gift

deed in question was executed by their grandmother in favour of

the petitioner No.1 and the extent shown in the said gift deed is

5.6 Ares. Admittedly, the property covered by the gift deed was

assigned by the petitioner No.1 in favour of the petitioner No.2.

While so, the extent was shown as 7.82 Ares. This is the only

allegation. The said allegation, even if accepted in its entirety, CRL.MC NO. 4781 OF 2020

2025:KER:51757

would not constitute an offence of either cheating or forgery.

There is no case of creation of any false document. The dispute

regarding the extent of the property conveyed is only a civil

dispute. That apart, Annexure A3 would show that a civil suit was

filed by the petitioner No.2 against the respondent No.2 for a

permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of 7.82 Ares of land

covered by the document No.1473/2005 of SRO, Vatakara,

before the Munsiff Court, Vatakara as O.S.No.188 of 2016. In the

said suit, a contention was taken by the respondent No.2 that as

per the document mentioned above, the petitioner No.2 had

derived the title only over 5.6 Ares of land and the extent had

been fraudulently shown as 7.82 Ares in the document. But the

said contention was rejected and a decree for injunction in

respect of the entire 7.82 Ares was granted. It is submitted that

the said decree has become final. Therefore, the offences under

Sections 420, 468 and 471 r/w Section 34 of the IPC are not at all

attracted against the petitioners. No prima facie case has been

made out. In these circumstances, no useful purpose will be CRL.MC NO. 4781 OF 2020

2025:KER:51757

served by allowing the criminal prosecution against the

petitioners to continue. Hence, Annexure A2 final report and all

further proceedings in C.C.No.602 of 2017 on the files of the

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vatakara, Kozhikode

District against the petitioners are hereby quashed.

Crl.M.C. is, accordingly, allowed.

Sd/-

DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE APA/AS CRL.MC NO. 4781 OF 2020

2025:KER:51757

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DATED 7.9.2016 IN CRIME NO.1190/2016 OF THE VATAKARA POLICE STATION ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED FINAL REPORT NO.622/2017 DATED 18.3.2017 ANNEXURE A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.8.2017 IN O.S.NO.188 OF 2016 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, VATAKARA.

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter